Pragmatic particles

Ad Foolen
Table of contents

Pragmatic particles do not contribute to the propositional content of an utterance. This important (negative) property of pragmatic particles is not sufficient as a defining characteristic, though, because it also holds for a number of focus particles and emotional interjections. A short positive definition of pragmatic particles is, however, not easy to give, because the items involved fulfill a whole array of functions: they can modify the illocutionary force, indicate the beginning, continuation and end of a turn, they can indicate a coherence break in the ongoing discourse, or signal the background or foreground status of a stretch of discourse. In general, pragmatic particles help to structure the communication process and to embed utterances into their communicative context.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

[BLS = Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society; CLF = Cahiers de linguistique française. Université de Genève; CLS = Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society; JoP = Journal of Pragmatics.]
Abraham, W.
1991 The grammaticization of the German modal particles. In: E.C. Traugott & B. Heine (eds.), Vol. I, 331–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 Wieso stehen nicht alle Modalpartikeln in allen Satzformen? Deutsche Sprache 23:124–146.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1991 Discourse particles. John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K.
1996 Swedish modal particles in a contrastive perspective. Language Sciences 18:393–427. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Akatsuha, N.
(ed.) 1994 Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 4. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ameka, F.
1992 Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. JoP 18:101–118 (Special issue on interjections). DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Andvik, E.E.
1992 A pragmatic analysis of Norwegian modal particles. The Summer Institute of Linguistics/The University of Texas at Arlington. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anscombre, J.-C. & O. Ducrot
1983 L’argumentation dans la langue. Mardaga. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M.
1994 Pragmatic Operators. In R.E. Asher (ed.), Volume 6, 3250–3253.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Arnold, J. et al.
(eds.) 1996 Sociolinguistic variation: Data, theory, and analysis. Selected papers from NWAV 23 at Stanford. CSLI.Google Scholar
Arndt, W.
1960 Modal particles in Russian and German. Word 16: 323–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, R.E.
(ed.) 1994 The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Pergamon Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Auchlin, A.
1981 ‘Mais hein, pis bon, ben alors, voilà, quoi!’ Marqueurs de structuration de la conversation. CLF 2: 141–160.Google Scholar
Van Baar, T.
1996 Particles. In B. Devriendt, et al. (eds.) Complex structures: A functionalist perspective: 259–301. de Gruyter.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 Phasal Polarity. Foris.Google Scholar
Bastert, U.
1985 Modalpartikel und Lexikographie: Eine exemplarische Studie zur Darstellbarkeit von doch im einsprachigen Wörterbuch. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, J.
1991 German particles in a modular grammar: Neurolinguistic evidence. In W. Abraham (ed.), 253–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bazzanella, C.
1990 Phatic connectives as interactional cues in contemporary spoken Italian. JoP 14: 629–647. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Beerbom, C.
1992 Modalpartikeln als Übersetzungsproblem: Eine kontrastive Studie zum Sprachpaar Deutsch-Spanisch. Lang.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Biq, Y.
1990 Conversation, continuation, and connectives. Text 10: 187–208.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, D.
1987 Semantic constraints on relevance. Blackwell.Google Scholar
1988 ‘So’ as a constraint on relevance. In R. Kempson (ed.) Mental representations: 183–195. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1996 Are apposition markers discourse markers? Journal of Linguistics 32: 325–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blass, R.
1990 Relevance relations in discourse: A study with special reference to Sissala. Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Bolinger
(ed.) 1972 Intonation. Penguin.Google Scholar
Brausse, U.
1991 Nicht-propositionals nicht oder Modalpartikel? Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 44: 439–453.Google Scholar
1994 Lexikalische Funktionen der Synsemantika. Narr.Google Scholar
Brinton, L.
1996 Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Briz, A.
1994 Hacia un análisis argumentativo de un texto coloquial. La incidencia de los conectores pragmáticos. Verba 21: 369–388.Google Scholar
Brown, P. & S. Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bublitz, W.
1978 Ausdrucksweisen der Sprechereinstellung im Deutschen und Englischen. Niemeyer. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Burkhardt, A.
1982 Gesprächswörter: Ihre lexikologische Bestimmung und lexikographische Beschreibung. In W. Mentrup (ed.): Konzepte zur Lexikographie: Studien zur Bedeutungsbeschreibung in einsprachigen Wörterbüchern: 138–171. Niemeyer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994 Abtönungspartikeln im Deutschen: Bedeutung und Genese. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 22: 129–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 Der Schwierige. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 23: 172–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, H.M.
1992 Meanings of non-referential indexes: A case study of the Japanese sentence-final particle ne . Text 12: 507–539.Google Scholar
Davidsen-Nielsen, N.
1996 Discourse particles in Danish. In E. Engberg-Pedersen et al. (eds.): Content, expression, and structure: Studies in Danish Functional Grammar. 283–314. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davoine, J.P.
1980 Des connecteurs phatiques. Le discourse polémique. PUL, 83–107.Google Scholar
Denniston, J.D.
1954 [1934] The Greek Particles. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Vriendt, S., W. Vandeweghe & P. Van De Craen
1991 Combinatorial aspects of modal particles in Dutch. Multilingua 10: 43–59.Google Scholar
Díaz, T.A.
1995 Implicatura y sentidos en partículas conectivas. Revista Española de Lingüística 25: 311–322.Google Scholar
Dimmendaal, G.J.
1996 Attitude markers and conversational implicatures in Turkana speech acts. Studies in Language 20: 249–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doherty, M.
1987 Epistemic meaning. Springer. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, O. et al.
1980 Les mots du discours. Ed. de Minuit.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Egner, I.
1989 Das Genfer Modell zur Gesprächsanalyse. In E. Weigand & F. Hundsnurscher (eds.): Band I: 3–18.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehlich, K.
1986 Interjektionen. Niemeyer. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Enkvist, N.E.
(ed.) 1982 Impromptu speech: A symposium. Åbo Akademi.Google Scholar
Erman, B.
1992 Female and male usage of pragmatic expressions in same-sex and mixed-sex interaction. Language variation and change 4: 217–234. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Eroms, H.-W.
1996 De l’érosion des connecteurs et de la précession des ligateurs. Études Germaniques 1996: 329–378.Google Scholar
Even-Zohar, I.
1982 The emergence of speech-organizers in a renovated language: The case of Hebrew void pragmatic connectives. In N.E. Enkvist (ed.): 179–193.Google Scholar
Fernandez, M.J.
1994 Les particules énonciatives. Presses University de France.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J.
1984 Remarks on contrastive pragmatics. In J. Fisiak (ed.) Contrastive Linguistics: Prospects and Problems: 119–141. Mouton.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foolen, A.
1989 Beschreibungsebenen für Partikelbedeutungen. In H. Weydt (ed.): 305–317.Google Scholar
1993 De betekenis van partikels. PhD. Diss University of Nijmegen.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1995 Dutch modal particles: The relevance of grammaticalized elements. In Th Shannon & J. Snapper (eds.): 57–70.Google Scholar
Franck, D.
1980 Grammatik und Konversation. Scriptor.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Fraser, B.
1990 An approach to discourse markers. JoP 14: 383–395. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1996 Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6(2): 167–190.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fretheim, T.
1989 The two faces of the Norwegian inference particle da . In H. Weydt (ed.): 403–415.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J.
1980 A tentative framework for speech act description of the utterance particle in conversational Cantonese. Linguistics 18: 763–775. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Greasley, P.
1994 An investigation into the use of the particle well: Commentaries on a game of snooker. JoP 22: 477–494. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gülich, E.
1970 Makrosyntax der Gliederungssignale im gesprochenen Französisch. Fink.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Gülich, E. & T. Kotschi
1983 Les marqueurs de la reformulation paraphrastique. CLF 5: 305–351.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Gully, A.
1995 Grammar and Semantics in Medieval Arabic. Curzon Press.Google Scholar
Gupta, A.F.
1992 The pragmatic particles of Singapore Colloquial English. JoP 18: 31–57.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A. & E.-L. Seppänen
1992 Finnish kato: From verb to particle. JoP 18: 527–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, M.M.
1996 The function of discourse particles: A study with special reference to spoken French. PhD. Diss University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Hartmann, D.
1994 Particles. In R.E. Asher (ed.): Vol. 6: 2953–2958.Google Scholar
Haviland, J.B.
1987 Fighting words: Evidential particles, affect and argument. BLS 13: 343–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinrich, W.
1981 Die Modalpartikeln im Deutschen und Schwedischen: Eine kontrastive Analyse. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heisler, T.
1996 OK: A dynamic discourse marker in Montréal French. In J. Arnold et al. (eds.): 293–312.Google Scholar
Helbig, G.
1977 Partikeln als illokutive Indikatoren im Dialog. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 14:30–43.Google Scholar
1988 Lexikon deutscher Partikeln. Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Helbig, G. & J. Buscha
1984 Deutsche Grammatik: Ein Handbuch für den Deutschunterricht. Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Helbig, G. & A. Helbig
1995 Deutsche Partikeln – richtig gebraucht? Langenscheidt/Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Helling, C.
1983 Deutsche Modalpartikeln im Übersetzungsvergleich: Deutsch-Italienisch/Italienisch-Deutsch. Eine kontrastive Mikroanalyse von Sprechakten. Grafiche Nuova Del Bianco.Google Scholar
Hentschel, E.
1986 Funktion und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln: Ja, doch, halt und eben. Niemeyer. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. & M.-L. Sorjonen
1994 Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society 23: 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoff, B.J.
1986 Evidentiality in Carib: Particles, affixes, and a variant of Wackernagel’s law. Lingua 69: 49–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hölker, K.
1988 Zur Analyse von Markern. Korrektur- und Schlußmarker des Französischen. Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
1990 Französisch: Partikelforschung. In G. Holtus et al. (eds.) Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik, Band V,1: 77–88. Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Holmes, J.
1986 Functions of ‘you know’ in women’s and men’s speech. Language in Society 15: 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ickler, T.
1994 Zur Bedeutung der sogenannten ‘Modalpartikeln’. Sprachwissenschaft 19: 374–404.Google Scholar
Itani, R.
1992 Japanese sentence-final particle ne: A relevance-theoretic approach. Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 215–237. University College London. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1993 The Japanese sentence-final particle ka: A relevance-theoretic approach. Lingua 90: 129–147. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, J.
1991 On the semantics of modal particles. In W. Abraham (ed.): 141–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janssen, T.
1995 Heterosemy or polyfunctionality? The case of Dutch maar ‘but, only, just’. In Th Shannon & J. Snapper (eds.): 71–85.Google Scholar
Jiang, M.
1994 Deutsche Modalpartikeln als Lehr- und Lernproblem im Fach Deutsch als Fremdsprache für Ausländer, mit didaktischen Überlegungen. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Jucker, A.
1993 The discourse-maker well: A relevance-theoretical account. JoP 19: 435–452.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Junko, M.
1994 Functions of the connective datte in Japanese conversation. In Noriko Akatsuha (ed.): 147–163.Google Scholar
Kärnä, A.
1983 Abtönung im Finnischen und im Deutschen. In H. Weydt (ed.) Partikeln und Interaktion: 85–95. Niemeyer. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Key, M.R.
1975 Paralanguage and kinesics (Nonverbal communication).Google Scholar
Kirsner, R.S. et al.
1994 Interaction of particle and prosody in the interpretation of factual Dutch sentences. In R. Bok-Bennema & C. Cremers (eds.) 1994 Linguistics in the Netherlands 1994: 107–118. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirsner, R.S. & V. Van Heuven
1996 hè, hoor, zeg. In C. Cremers & M. Den Dikken (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996: 133–146. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, E.
1991 The meaning of focus particles. London: Routledge. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
König, E. & D. Stark
1991 The treatment of function words in a new bilingual German-English dictionary. In W. Abraham (ed.), 303–328.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, E. & S. Requardt
1991 A relevance-theoretic approach to the analysis of modal particles in German. Multilingua 10: 63–77.Google Scholar
König, E., S. Requardt & D. Stark
1990 Adverbien und Partikeln: Ein deutsch-englisches Wörterbuch. Groos.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Krivonosov, A.
1977 [1963] Die modalen Partikeln in der deutschen Gegenwartsprache. Göppingen.Google Scholar
Kroon, C.
1995 Discourse Particles in Latin: A study of nam, enim, autem, vero and at. Gieben.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Kutsch, S.
1985 Zur Enwicklung des deutschen Partikelsystems im ungesteuerten Zweitspracherwerb ausländischer Kinder. Deutsche Sprache 13: 230–257.Google Scholar
Kyu-Hyun, K. & S. Kyung-Hee
1994 The discourse connective nikka in Korean conversation. In N. Akatsuha (ed.): 113–129.Google Scholar
Lamiroy, B. & W. Van Belle
1995 Connectives of contrast and concession in Dutch and French. Leuvense Bijdragen 84: 397–418.Google Scholar
Léard, J.-M.
1996 Ti/-tu, est-ce que, qu’est-ce que, ce que, hé que, don. Revue québécoise de linguistique 24: 107–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. & J. Svartvik
1994 A communicative grammar of English. Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C.
1995 Synsemantika. In J. Jacobs et al. (eds.) Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, Band 2: 1251–1266. Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, F.
1991 Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language 67: 475–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindner, K.
1991 ‘Wir sind ja doch alte bekannte.’ The use of German ja and doch as modal particles. In W. Abraham (ed.): 163–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longacre, R.E.
1976 ‘Mystery’ particles and affixes. CLS 12: 468–475.Google Scholar
Luke, K.-K.
1989 The cantonese utterance particle la and the accomplishment of common understandings in conversation. Papers in Pragmatics 3: 39–87.Google Scholar
1990 Utterance particles in Cantonese conversation. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lütten, J.
1977 Untersuchungen zur Leistung der Partikeln in der gesprochenen deutschen Sprache. Kümmerle.Google Scholar
Mansour, J.
1985 The particle baqa in the Judaeo-Arabic dialect of Bagdad. Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik 14: 62–75.Google Scholar
Masi, S.
1996 Deutsche Modalpartikeln und ihre Entsprechungen im Italienischen. Äquivalente für doch, ja, denn, schon und wohl. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Maynard, S.K.
1989 Functions of the discourse marker dakara in Japanese conversation. Text 9: 389–414.Google Scholar
1992 Speech act declaration in conversation: Functions of the Japanese connective datte . Studies in Language 16: 63–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, J.
1994 Modaler Kontrast und konzeptuelle Verschiebung: Studien zur Syntax und Semantik deutscher Modalpartikeln. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Der Merwe, C.H.J.
1993 Old Hebrew particles and the interpretation of Old Testament texts. Journal for the study of the Old Testament 60: 27–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Métrich, R., E. Faucher & G. Courdier
1996 Les Invariables Difficiles. Dictionnaire allemand-français des particules, connecteurs, interjections et autres ‘mots de la communication’. tome 1: aber-ausserdem. Tome 2: bald-geradezu. Université de Nancy 2.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, M.
1994 Sounds pretty ethnic, eh?: A pragmatic particle in New Zealand English. Language in Society 23: 367–388. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. & R. Weinert
1995 The function of LIKE in dialogue. JoP 23: 365–393.Google Scholar
Miracle, W.C.
1989  Hao: A Chinese discourse marker. CLS 25: 213–227.Google Scholar
Mönnink, J.
1988 De organisatie van gesprekken: Een pragmatische studie van minimale interaktieve taalvormen. PhD. Diss, University of Nijmegen.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Nekula, M.
1996 System der Partikeln im Deutschen und Tschechischen, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Abtönungspartikeln. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niehüser, W.
1989 Zur Funktion von Redecharakterisierungen in Dialogen. In E. Weigand & F. Hundsnurscher (eds.): Band II: 377–391.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nølke, H.
1995 Contrastive and argumentative linguistic analysis of the French connectors donc and car . Leuvense Bijdragen 84: 313–328.Google Scholar
Nyan, T.
1991 ‘Maintenant’: emploi pragmatique. French Language Studies 1: 157–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ormelius, E.
1993 Die Modalpartikel schon. In I. Rosengren (ed.) Satz und Illokution, Band 2: 151–191. Niemeyer.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ormelius-Sandblom, E.
1997 Die Modalpartikeln ja, doch und schon. Zu ihrer Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O.
1981 You know: A discourse-functional approach. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1982 The symbiotic relationship between pragmatic particles and impromptu speech. In N.E. Enkvist (ed.): 147–177.Google Scholar
1990 Particles and prosody. On the language-internal interactions of prosody and pragmatic particles. In J. Verschueren (ed.) Levels of linguistic adaptation: 5–35. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 Pragmatic particles twenty years after. In B. Wårvik et al. (eds.) Organization in discourse. Proceedings from the Turku conference: 95–108. Anglicana Turkuensia 14.Google Scholar
Östman, J.-O. & B. Wårvik
1994 The fight at Finnsburch: Pragmatic aspects of a narrative fragment. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen XCV: 207–227.Google Scholar
Ott, J.H.
1990 Les particules modales dans les enoncés imperatifs: sens, fonctions illocutoires et stratégiques. PhD. University des sciences humaines de Strasbourg.
Paul, H.
1992 Deutsches Wörterbuch. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petrič, T.
1996 On some (non)-parallelisms in Natural Textlinguistics. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49(3): 312–317.Google Scholar
Petter, Y.
1985 Et. Papiere zur Linguistik 33: 31–44. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Van De Poel, K. & S. Van Elst
1996 De finesses van het Nederlands. Acco.Google Scholar
Pos, H.-J.
1933 Les particules: Leurs fonctions logiques et affectives. Recherches philosophiques 3: 321–333.Google Scholar
Posner, R.
1979 Bedeutungsmaximalismus und Bedeutungsminimalismus in der Beschreibung von Satzverknüpfern. In H. Weydt (ed.) Partikeln der deutschen Sprache: 378–394. De Gruyter.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rathmayr, R.
1985 Die russischen Partikeln als Pragmalexeme. Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Requardt, S.
1992 Vergleichende Untersuchungen der Funktionswörter im Deutschen und Englischen. PhD. Diss., University of Hannover.Google Scholar
Risselada, R.
1994  Modo and sane, or what to do with particles in Latin directives. In J. Herman (ed.) Linguistic studies on Latin: 319–342. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 And now for something completely different? Temporal discourse markers: Latin nunc and English now . In R. Risselada et al. (eds.) On Latin: Linguistic and literary studies in honour of Harm Pinkster: 105–125. Gieben.Google Scholar
Roulet, E. et al.
1987 L’articulation du discours en français contemporain. Lang.Google Scholar
Rubattel, C.
1987 Actes de langage, semi-actes et typologie des connecteurs pragmatiques. Lingvisticae Investigationes 11: 379–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudolph, E.
1996 Contrast: Adversative and concessive relations and their expressions in English, German, Spanish, Portuguese on sentence and text level. de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruhl, C.
1989 On monosemy: A study in linguistic semantics. SUNY Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sanders, T., W. Spooren & L. Noordman
1993 Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 93–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäufele, S.
1996 Now that we’re all here, where do we sit? Phonological ordering in the Vedic clause-initial string. In A.L. Halpern & A.M. Zwicky (eds.) Approaching second: 447–475. CLSI Publications.Google Scholar
Schenkeveld, D.M.
1986 From particula to particle – the genesis of a class of words. In Rosier (ed.) L’héritage des grammariens latin de l’antiquité aux lumières: 81–93. Peeters.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D.
1986 Functions of and in discourse. JoP 10: 41–66. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1987 Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schiller, E.
1995 Not yes, not no: The zen of Khmer discourse particles. BLS 21: 107–113 (Special issue on discourse in Southeast Asian languages). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schleppegrel, J.J.
1991 Paratactic because . JoP 16: 323–337.Google Scholar
Schubiger, M.
1965 English intonation and German modal particles: A comparative study. Phonetica 12: 65–84. Also in D. Bolinger (ed.) (1972): 175–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1980 English intonation and German modal particles II: A comparative study. In L. Waugh & C. Van Schooneveld (eds.) The melody of language: 279–298. University Park Pressniversity Park Press.Google Scholar
Shannon, T. & J. Snapper
(eds.) 1995 The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1993. University Press of America.Google Scholar
Silva, G.M.O. & A.T. Macedo
1992 Discourse markers in the spoken Portuguese of Rio de Janeiro. Language variation and change 4: 235–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, H.J.
1996 Zur Problematik einer Geschichte der deutschen Abtönungspartikeln: Fallstudien anhand eines Sprachlehrbuchs von 1424. Sprachwissenschaft 21: 262–300.Google Scholar
Snoeck Henkemans, F.
1995 ‘But’ as an indicator of counter-arguments and concessions. Leuvense Bijdragen 84: 281–294.Google Scholar
Stenström, A.-B.
1990a Lexical items peculiar to spoken discourse. In J. Svartvik (ed.): 137–175.Google Scholar
1990b Pauses in monologue and dialogue. In J. Svartvik (ed.): 211–252.Google Scholar
Svartvik, J.
(ed.) 1990 The London-Lund corpus of spoken English: Description and research. Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E.
1990 From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Thurmair, M.
1989 Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991 Kombinieren Sie doch nur ruhig mal Modalpartikeln: Combinatorial regularities for modal particles and their uses as an instrument of analysis. Multilingua 10: 19–42.Google Scholar
1993 Äusserungsform oder Äusserungsfunktion? Zu den Bedingungen für das Auftreten von Modalpartikeln. Deutsche Sprache 21: 22–43.Google Scholar
Tobler, L.
1878 Conjunctionen mit mehrfacher Bedeutung. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur 5: 358–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C.
1995 The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper delivered at ICHL XII, University of Manchester.
Traugott, E.C. & B. Heine
(eds.) 1991 Approaches to grammaticalization. Vol. I and II. John Benjamins.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E.C. & E. König
1991 The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In E.C. Traugott & B. Heine (eds.): Vol. I: 189–218.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tuggy, D.
1993 Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics 4: 273–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Unger, C.
1996 The scope of discourse connectives: implications for discourse organization. Journal of Linguistics 32: 403–438. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uyeno
1971 A study of Japanese modality: a performative analysis of sentence particles. PhD. Diss., University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Vandepitte, S.
1993 A pragmatic study of the expression and interpretation of causality conjuncts and conjunctions in modern spoken British English. Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Academie.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Van Der Auwera, J. & W. Vandeweghe
(eds.) 1994 Studies over Nederlandse partikels. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 35.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T.
1979 Pragmatic connectives. JoP 3: 447–456.Google Scholar
Vicher, A. & D. Sankoff
1989 The emergent syntax of pre-sentential turn openings. JoP 13: 81–97. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Vincent, D.
1993 Les ponctuants de la langue et autre mots du discours. Nuit Blanche Éditeur.Google Scholar
Vincent, D. & D. Sankoff
1992 Punctors: A pragmatic variable. Language variation and change 4: 205–216. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Vismans, R.
1994 Modal particles in Dutch directives: A study in Functional Grammar. IFOTT.Google Scholar
Wakker, G.
1995 ‘Welaan dan dus nu’: Partikels in Sophocles. Lampas 28: 250–270.Google Scholar
Wauchope, M.M.
1991 The Grammar of the Old High German modal particles thoh, ia, and thanne. Lang.Google Scholar
Wegener, H.
1989 Eine Modalpartikel besonderer Art: Der Dativus Ethicus. In H. Weydt (ed.): 56–73.Google Scholar
Weigand, E. & F. Hundsnurscher
(eds.) 1989 Dialoganalyse II: Referate der 2. Arbeitstagung, Bochum 1988. 2 Volumes. Niemeyer.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Weydt, H.
1969 Abtönungspartikel: Die deutschen Modalwörter und ihre französischen Entsprechungen. Gehlen.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1989 Sprechen mit Partikeln. de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Weydt, H. et al.
1983 Kleine deutsche Partikellehre. Klett.Google Scholar
Weydt, H. & K.-H. Ehlers
1987 Partikel-Bibliographie. Internationale Sprachenforschung zu Partikeln und Interjektionen. Lang.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
1991 Cross-cultural pragmatics. Mouton de Gruyter.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, D.
1986 Particle/clitics for criticism and complaint in Mpartntwe Arrernte (Aranda). JoP 10: 575–596. (Special issue on particles). DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1995 Expanding the traditional category of deictic elements: Interjections as deictics. In J. Duchan, G. Bruder and L. Hewitt (eds.) Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective: 359–386. Erlbaum.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Wills, J.
1993 Homeric particle order. Historische Sprachforschung 106: 61–81.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & N. Smith
(eds.) 1990 Special issue on ‘Relevance Theory’ (Vol. 2). Lingua 90: 1/2.Google Scholar
Wolski, W.
1986 Partikellexikographie: Ein Beitrag zur praktischen Lexikographie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A.M.
1985 Clitics and particles. Language 61:283–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zybatow, L.
1987 Zu der Bedeutung einiger russischer Modalpartikeln und ihrer Wiedergabe im Deutschen: Eine konfrontative Studie der Partikeln že, ved’, da, taki, už, i, -to. PhD. Diss., University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
1989 Wider grammatische Abstinenz und pragmatische Euphorie bei der Partikelbeschreibung. In N. Reiter (ed.) Sprechen und Hören: Akten des 23. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Berlin 1988: 489–499. Niemeyer.  BoPGoogle Scholar